(Original post by Oliver_94)
The protests were in favour of terrorism and the likes of Isis. They were controlled by the west

So what you are saying is the west orchestrated pro Isis protests, so isis could then wage a war against the west. All this before isis was even called isis and was barely a relevant force. I think you need to try and learn a little more about the middle east.

The Assad regime has committed all sorts of atrocities, including the shooting dead of protesters, torture and murder of people in custody, using indiscriminate barrel bombs in civilian areas, and summary executions of captured fighters and civilians among other things.

Assad is not some innocent victim in all this, and the attempts to deny the government's human rights abuses are just unsupported conspiracy theories. I suspect this particular user is a troll, but there are people who actually believe this stuff.

(Original post by Parasite)
ISIS didn't rise from the desert, they were trained by US military. Osama Bin Laden worked with the CIA prior to the formation of Al Qaeda.

No they weren't and no he didn't. Both claims are unfounded myths/conspiracies with no evidence to support them.
ISIS rose from over a decade of insurgency, originally as Al Qaeda in Iraq. They were 'trained' by the U.S. Military in as much as they spent years fighting against the U.S. Military. The CIA only worked with native Afghan mujahideen groups, not Arab or foreign ones.

(Original post by pol pot noodles)
No they weren't and no he didn't. Both claims are unfounded myths/conspiracies with no evidence to support them.
ISIS rose from over a decade of insurgency, originally as Al Qaeda in Iraq. They were 'trained' by the U.S. Military in as much as they spent years fighting against the U.S. Military. The CIA only worked with native Afghan mujahideen groups, not Arab or foreign ones.

To be honest there are many conspiracies, and it could even be argued that your point is unfounded depending on the view you take. The US government would never admit to having trained or dealt with current terrorist groups I mean imagine the revolt that would cause.

The US government admitted to training the native Afghan Mujahideen group because there was sufficient undeniable proof against them. However, I believe their influence and dealings stretch further than that training and dealing with Arab and foreign Mujahideen is another possibility, however lack of proof means either way we'll never find out for sure.

There are several reasons for the rise of religious extremism in the arab and western world that we could digress into and not all are inextricably linked to the US. The middle eastern political landscape is a complex triangulation of many factors. I take your point though. We could both be wrong as we could also both be right. Lack of evidence either way reduces us to speculate on supposed "truths".

(Original post by Oliver_94)
Have we not learnt anything from Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, Palestine...and so on?

Assad is innocent. He has done nothing wrong. He is defending himself against terrorists. The so called "rebels" are terrorists like ISIS fuelled by a hatred towards Shia Muslims. It is the Sunnis that are the problem.

The west back the terrorists in an attempt to topple Assad and thwart Russia. It is childish war games.

May Assad and Putin drink the blood of every man, woman and child who tries to kill him and destroy his country. Long live Assad!

I guess this is an opinion.
History will reveal the truth in 100 or 200 years from now.

(Original post by Parasite)
To be honest there are many conspiracies, and it could even be argued that your point is unfounded depending on the view you take. The US government would never admit to having trained or dealt with current terrorist groups I mean imagine the revolt that would cause.

The US government admitted to training the native Afghan Mujahideen group because there was sufficient undeniable proof against them. However, I believe their influence and dealings stretch further than that training and dealing with Arab and foreign Mujahideen is another possibility, however lack of proof means either way we'll never find out for sure.

There are several reasons for the rise of religious extremism in the arab and western world that we could digress into and not all are inextricably linked to the US. The middle eastern political landscape is a complex triangulation of many factors. I take your point though. We could both be wrong as we could also both be right. Lack of evidence either way reduces us to speculate on supposed "truths".

The CIA smuggled cocaine and funded paramilitary death squads in Central America. Knowing that they also had dealings with Bin Laden in the 80s, which so many people believe anyhow, would not cause a revolt. There's so much information available on CIA dealings that the fact that there is not one shred indicating they co-operating with any foreign mujahideen is conclusive proof that it didn't happen. Remember it's not something they're even actively trying to hide. Unlike Contra, CIA supporting the Mujahideen against Russian invasion is relatively morally righteous.

My point is not unfounded. It's based on evidence and logic. Unfortunately crack pot conspiracies have become so commonplace that we're at a point where people think a conspiracy is plausible because they also believe another crack pot conspiracy. Case in point, you citing the CIA helping Bin Laden when claiming the U.S. Military trained ISIS. Both claims are false.
I'm not debating the causes of religious extremism. Only that the USA did not train ISIS and it did not train Bin Laden.

(Original post by Oliver_94)
Have we not learnt anything from Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, Palestine...and so on?

Assad is innocent. He has done nothing wrong. He is defending himself against terrorists. The so called "rebels" are terrorists like ISIS fuelled by a hatred towards Shia Muslims. It is the Sunnis that are the problem.

The west back the terrorists in an attempt to topple Assad and thwart Russia. It is childish war games.

May Assad and Putin drink the blood of every man, woman and child who tries to kill him and destroy his country. Long live Assad!

Agreed.

I can't believe so many people believe this demonised depiction of him. The west has succeeded in brainwashing people.

(Original post by Oliver_94)
Have we not learnt anything from Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, Palestine...and so on?

Assad is innocent. He has done nothing wrong. He is defending himself against terrorists. The so called "rebels" are terrorists like ISIS fuelled by a hatred towards Shia Muslims. It is the Sunnis that are the problem.

The west back the terrorists in an attempt to topple Assad and thwart Russia. It is childish war games.

May Assad and Putin drink the blood of every man, woman and child who tries to kill him and destroy his country. Long live Assad!

(Original post by Oliver_94)
Have we not learnt anything from Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, Palestine...and so on?

Assad is innocent. He has done nothing wrong. He is defending himself against terrorists. The so called "rebels" are terrorists like ISIS fuelled by a hatred towards Shia Muslims. It is the Sunnis that are the problem.

The west back the terrorists in an attempt to topple Assad and thwart Russia. It is childish war games.

May Assad and Putin drink the blood of every man, woman and child who tries to kill him and destroy his country. Long live Assad!

1) assad *is* a terrorist. a state terrorist. he is a dictator with blood all over his hands. he is *certainly* not "innocent" in terms of politics.
2) but I'm not saying he should be booted out of power. especially by the west. because, like you said, it will have the same effect as iraq, afghanistan, libya, etc. if it was possible that the rebels would install a democracy after a successful revolution, then I'd support them because that wouldn't *necessarily* destabilise the region. but if there is simply a toppling of a regime without an exit plan, then it will. and this is how the west always does it - it kills the king and simply leaves. it's insanity. it's not helping anybody. anarchy is worse than dictatorship for most people. assad *is* self-defending against terrorist today, but yesterday he was defending himself against rebels because he was a dictator who obviously closed a humanitarian line.

(Original post by RF_PineMarten)
The Assad regime has committed all sorts of atrocities, including the shooting dead of protesters, torture and murder of people in custody, using indiscriminate barrel bombs in civilian areas, and summary executions of captured fighters and civilians among other things.

Assad is not some innocent victim in all this, and the attempts to deny the government's human rights abuses are just unsupported conspiracy theories. I suspect this particular user is a troll, but there are people who actually believe this stuff.

They're called RT viewers. They never miss an opportunity to lap up some retarded conspiracy theory with no evidence what so ever about how anything and everything is the fault of America/UK/illuminati/Jews/feminism/homosexuals

(Original post by Good bloke)
So, you don't condemn those who started the war, who are Moslems, nor those who provoked the war, who are also Moslems, but you do condemn those who seek to limit the war and who are helping the refugees, because they are not Moslems?

You've just described the entire history of the Muslim world in a nutshell to be fair.

(Original post by Aj12)
I love this argument that Assad is fighting terrorists and should be lauded for it. A radical insurgency does not appear overnight. Events in Syria started as peaceful protests that Assad responded to with bullets, he created the mess he is in and helped fuel the rise of Isis.

(Original post by Stolyarov Daniel)
What a propaganda....it started with FSA demanding the democratically elected president , recognised by UN, to resign.

That 2014 election was a sham, with candidates hand picked by the government who were all praising Assad and telling people to vote for him. It was not a legitimate democratic election. And the protests that eventually led to war started 3 years before that.

Assad is not "democratically elected" by any sensible definition of the phrase.

(Original post by RF_PineMarten)
That 2014 election was a sham, with candidates hand picked by the government who were all praising Assad and telling people to vote for him. It was not a legitimate democratic election. And the protests that eventually led to war started 3 years before that.

Assad is not "democratically elected" by any sensible definition of the phrase.

What I am going to say is good luck to all European citizens trapped in delusion done by social engineering and hope that eventually you will understand the position of US in foreign policy

(Original post by Stolyarov Daniel)
What I am going to say is good luck to all European citizens trapped in delusion done by social engineering and hope that eventually you will understand the position of US in foreign policy

But you're above it all, right? You're too smart to be like us brainwashed sheep who can't think for ourselves. Thank God we have RT viewers and conspiracy theorists to think for us.

(Original post by KimKallstrom)
But you're above it all, right? You're too smart to be like us brainwashed sheep who can't think for ourselves. Thank God we have RT viewers and conspiracy theorists to think for us.

I am not an RT viewer, I am the person who can understand Ukrainian , Russian and English media and compare them in order to get to conclusion. I lived in Japan 11 years , in Russia 6 years and in uk 4 years. I know the culture, mindset, attitude , interest of these countries and how these people think. This information allows me to understand the situation more comprehensively. Not like you who lived with one mindset and is trapped in media hole designed specifically for the likes of you.